Visual Speech Perception in Children WithLanguage Learning Impairments terjemahan - Visual Speech Perception in Children WithLanguage Learning Impairments Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

Visual Speech Perception in Childre

Visual Speech Perception in Children With
Language Learning Impairments
Victoria C. P. Knowland,a Sam Evans,b Caroline Snell,a and Stuart Rosenb
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the ability
of children with developmental language learning impairments
(LLIs) to use visual speech cues from the talking face.
Method: In this cross-sectional study, 41 typically developing
children (mean age: 8 years 0 months, range: 4 years 5 months
to 11 years 10 months) and 27 children with diagnosed LLI
(mean age: 8 years 10 months, range: 5 years 2 months to
11 years 6 months) completed a silent speechreading task
and a speech-in-noise task with and without visual support
from the talking face. The speech-in-noise task involved the
identification of a target word in a carrier sentence with a
single competing speaker as a masker.
Results: Children in the LLI group showed a deficit in
speechreading when compared with their typically developing
peers. Beyond the single-word level, this deficit became more
apparent in older children. On the speech-in-noise task, a
substantial benefit of visual cues was found regardless of
age or group membership, although the LLI group showed
an overall developmental delay in speech perception.
Conclusion: Although children with LLI were less accurate
than their peers on the speechreading and speech-in noisetasks,
both groups were able to make equivalent use of
visual cues to boost performance accuracy when listening
in noise.
Children with developmental language learning
impairments show a primary deficit in the acquisition
and use of oral language that cannot be
explained with recourse to sensory impairments, reduced
opportunity to learn, or low nonverbal IQ. These children
are variously referred to in the literature as having specific
language impairment or language learning difficulties.
Here we use the term language learning impairment (LLI;
Tallal & Benasich, 2002) to reflect a primary deficit in the
language domain while acknowledging the considerable
difficulties recorded across multiple areas of cognitive development
(e.g., Donlan, Cowan, Newton, & Lloyd, 2007;
Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012; Hill, 2001).
There is substantial heterogeneity within the population
of children with LLI and, as yet, little understanding
of the developmental pathways causally related to atypical
language behavior. One fruitful, though controversial,
area of research has been that of auditory processing. As
a group, children with LLI show poor performance in
comparison to their typically developing (TD) peers on
multiple auditory processing tasks using both speech and
nonspeech stimuli (Corriveau, Pasquini, & Goswami, 2007;
McArthur & Bishop, 2004; Rosen, Adlard, & van der
Lely, 2009; Wright et al., 1997; and see Rosen, 2003, for
a review). Within the speech domain, children with LLI and
especially those with mixed expressive and receptive difficulties
(Stark & Heinz, 1996a) show greater variability in
the placement of phonetic category boundaries (Burlingame,
Sussman, Gillam, & Hay, 2005; Sussman, 1993) and are
less accurate at identifying steady-state vowels than TD
controls (Stark & Heinz, 1996b). Deficits are seen in speech
tasks even when working memory demands, known to be
an area of weakness in children with LLI (Henry et al., 2012;
Marton, 2008), are kept low.
Although speech perception difficulties are evident
in children with LLI when tested in optimal listening
conditions, the effects of noise seem to exacerbate group
differences. This pattern has been observed for syllable
identification (Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, & Lorenzi,
2011; Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, Alario, & Lorenzi,
2005) and discrimination between minimal pairs (Vance
& Martindale, 2012). In some cases, group effects have
only been found under conditions of noise and not when
given a clear auditory signal, for example, during phonetic
categorization (Robertson, Joanisse, Desroches, &
Ng, 2009) and sentence perception (Bradlow, Kraus, &
Hayes, 2003). Furthermore, the perception of speech in
noise has been found to predict later receptive language
aCity University London, United Kingdom
bUniversity College London, United Kingdom
Correspondence to Victoria C. P. Knowland:
victoria.knowland.1@city.ac.uk
Editor: Jody Kreiman
Associate Editor: Megha Sundara
Received September 29, 2014
Revision received May 31, 2015
Accepted July 30, 2015
DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0269
Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time
of publication.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 59 • 1–14 • February 2016 • Copyright © 2016 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1
Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a University College London User on 03/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
scores for children with impairments (Robertson et al., 2009;
Vance & Martindale, 2012; Ziegler et al., 2011).
Behavioral studies of deficits in speec
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
Visual Speech Perception in Children WithLanguage Learning ImpairmentsVictoria C. P. Knowland,a Sam Evans,b Caroline Snell,a and Stuart RosenbPurpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the abilityof children with developmental language learning impairments(LLIs) to use visual speech cues from the talking face.Method: In this cross-sectional study, 41 typically developingchildren (mean age: 8 years 0 months, range: 4 years 5 monthsto 11 years 10 months) and 27 children with diagnosed LLI(mean age: 8 years 10 months, range: 5 years 2 months to11 years 6 months) completed a silent speechreading taskand a speech-in-noise task with and without visual supportfrom the talking face. The speech-in-noise task involved theidentification of a target word in a carrier sentence with asingle competing speaker as a masker.Results: Children in the LLI group showed a deficit inspeechreading when compared with their typically developingpeers. Beyond the single-word level, this deficit became moreapparent in older children. On the speech-in-noise task, asubstantial benefit of visual cues was found regardless ofage or group membership, although the LLI group showedan overall developmental delay in speech perception.Conclusion: Although children with LLI were less accuratethan their peers on the speechreading and speech-in noisetasks,both groups were able to make equivalent use ofvisual cues to boost performance accuracy when listeningin noise.Children with developmental language learningimpairments show a primary deficit in the acquisitionand use of oral language that cannot beexplained with recourse to sensory impairments, reducedopportunity to learn, or low nonverbal IQ. These childrenare variously referred to in the literature as having specificlanguage impairment or language learning difficulties.Here we use the term language learning impairment (LLI;Tallal & Benasich, 2002) to reflect a primary deficit in thelanguage domain while acknowledging the considerabledifficulties recorded across multiple areas of cognitive development(e.g., Donlan, Cowan, Newton, & Lloyd, 2007;Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012; Hill, 2001).There is substantial heterogeneity within the populationof children with LLI and, as yet, little understandingof the developmental pathways causally related to atypicallanguage behavior. One fruitful, though controversial,area of research has been that of auditory processing. Asa group, children with LLI show poor performance incomparison to their typically developing (TD) peers onmultiple auditory processing tasks using both speech andnonspeech stimuli (Corriveau, Pasquini, & Goswami, 2007;McArthur & Bishop, 2004; Rosen, Adlard, & van derLely, 2009; Wright et al., 1997; and see Rosen, 2003, fora review). Within the speech domain, children with LLI andespecially those with mixed expressive and receptive difficulties(Stark & Heinz, 1996a) show greater variability inthe placement of phonetic category boundaries (Burlingame,Sussman, Gillam, & Hay, 2005; Sussman, 1993) and areless accurate at identifying steady-state vowels than TDcontrols (Stark & Heinz, 1996b). Deficits are seen in speechtasks even when working memory demands, known to bean area of weakness in children with LLI (Henry et al., 2012;Marton, 2008), are kept low.Although speech perception difficulties are evidentin children with LLI when tested in optimal listeningconditions, the effects of noise seem to exacerbate groupdifferences. This pattern has been observed for syllableidentification (Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, & Lorenzi,2011; Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, Alario, & Lorenzi,2005) and discrimination between minimal pairs (Vance& Martindale, 2012). In some cases, group effects haveonly been found under conditions of noise and not whengiven a clear auditory signal, for example, during phoneticcategorization (Robertson, Joanisse, Desroches, &Ng, 2009) and sentence perception (Bradlow, Kraus, &Hayes, 2003). Furthermore, the perception of speech innoise has been found to predict later receptive languageaCity University London, United KingdombUniversity College London, United KingdomCorrespondence to Victoria C. P. Knowland:victoria.knowland.1@city.ac.ukEditor: Jody KreimanAssociate Editor: Megha SundaraReceived September 29, 2014Revision received May 31, 2015Accepted July 30, 2015DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0269Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the timeof publication.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research • Vol. 59 • 1–14 • February 2016 • Copyright © 2016 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1Downloaded From: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ by a University College London User on 03/04/2016Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspxscores for children with impairments (Robertson et al., 2009;Vance & Martindale, 2012; Ziegler et al., 2011).Behavioral studies of deficits in speec
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Visual Pidato Persepsi pada Anak Dengan
Belajar Bahasa Impairments
Victoria CP Knowland, Sam Evans, b Caroline Snell, dan Stuart Rosenb
Tujuan: Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menilai kemampuan
anak cacat belajar bahasa perkembangan
(LLIs) menggunakan visual yang isyarat pidato dari muka berbicara.
Metode: dalam studi cross-sectional ini, 41 biasanya mengembangkan
anak-anak (usia rata-rata: 8 tahun 0 bulan, kisaran: 4 tahun 5 bulan
sampai 11 tahun 10 bulan) dan 27 anak-anak dengan didiagnosis LLI
(usia rata-rata : 8 tahun 10 bulan, kisaran: 5 tahun 2 bulan ke
11 tahun 6 bulan) menyelesaikan tugas speechreading diam
dan tugas pidato-in-noise dengan dan tanpa dukungan visual yang
dari muka berbicara. Tugas pidato-in-noise melibatkan
identifikasi kata target dalam kalimat pembawa dengan
speaker bersaing tunggal sebagai masker a.
Hasil: Anak-anak di kelompok LLI menunjukkan defisit di
speechreading bila dibandingkan dengan mereka biasanya berkembang
rekan-rekan. Melampaui tingkat satu-kata, defisit ini menjadi lebih
jelas pada anak-anak yang lebih tua. Pada tugas pidato-in-kebisingan,
manfaat besar isyarat visual ditemukan terlepas dari
usia atau keanggotaan grup, meskipun kelompok LLI menunjukkan
suatu keterlambatan perkembangan secara keseluruhan dalam persepsi ujaran.
Kesimpulan: Walaupun anak-anak dengan LLI kurang akurat
daripada rekan-rekan mereka di yang speechreading dan pidato-in noisetasks,
kedua kelompok mampu membuat setara menggunakan
isyarat visual untuk meningkatkan akurasi kinerja ketika mendengarkan
dalam kebisingan.
Anak-anak dengan perkembangan belajar bahasa
gangguan menunjukkan defisit utama dalam akuisisi
dan penggunaan bahasa lisan yang tidak bisa
dijelaskan dengan jalan lain untuk gangguan sensorik, mengurangi
kesempatan untuk belajar, atau IQ nonverbal rendah. Anak-anak ini
yang beda disebut dalam literatur sebagai memiliki spesifik
gangguan bahasa atau belajar bahasa kesulitan.
Di sini kita menggunakan penurunan pembelajaran bahasa istilah (LLI;
Tallal & Benasich, 2002) untuk mencerminkan defisit utama dalam
domain bahasa sementara mengakui cukup
kesulitan direkam di beberapa bidang pengembangan kognitif
(misalnya, Donlan, Cowan, Newton, & Lloyd, 2007;
Henry, Messer, & Nash, 2012; Hill, 2001).
Ada heterogenitas substansial dalam populasi
anak-anak dengan LLI dan, belum , sedikit pemahaman
dari jalur perkembangan kausal berkaitan dengan atipikal
perilaku bahasa. Satu berbuah, meskipun kontroversial,
daerah penelitian telah bahwa pengolahan pendengaran. Sebagai
kelompok, anak-anak dengan LLI menunjukkan kinerja yang buruk di
dibandingkan dengan biasanya mengembangkan mereka (TD) rekan-rekan dari
beberapa tugas pengolahan pendengaran menggunakan kedua pidato dan
rangsangan nonspeech (Corriveau, Pasquini, & Goswami, 2007;
McArthur & Bishop, 2004; Rosen, Adlard , & van der
Lely, 2009;. Wright et al, 1997; dan melihat Rosen, 2003, untuk
review). Dalam domain pidato, anak-anak dengan LLI dan
terutama mereka dengan kesulitan ekspresif dan reseptif campuran
(Stark & Heinz, 1996a) menunjukkan variabilitas yang lebih besar dalam
penempatan kategori batas fonetik (Burlingame,
Sussman, Gillam, & Hay, 2005; Sussman, 1993) dan
kurang akurat mengidentifikasi vokal mapan dari TD
kontrol (Stark & Heinz, 1996b). Defisit terlihat dalam pidato
tugas bahkan ketika tuntutan memori kerja, dikenal
menjadi kelemahan pada anak-anak dengan LLI (Henry et al, 2012;.
Marton, 2008), tetap rendah.
Meskipun kesulitan persepsi ujaran yang jelas
pada anak-anak dengan LLI saat diuji dalam mendengarkan optimal
kondisi, efek suara tampaknya memperburuk kelompok
perbedaan. Pola ini telah diamati untuk suku kata
identifikasi (Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, & Lorenzi,
2011; Ziegler, Pech-Georgel, George, Alario, & Lorenzi,
2005) dan diskriminasi antara pasangan minimal (Vance
& Martindale, 2012). Dalam beberapa kasus, efek kelompok telah
hanya ditemukan dalam kondisi kebisingan dan tidak ketika
diberi sinyal pendengaran yang jelas, misalnya, selama fonetik
kategorisasi (Robertson, Joanisse, Desroches, &
Ng, 2009) dan persepsi kalimat (Bradlow, Kraus, &
Hayes, 2003). Selanjutnya, persepsi pidato di
kebisingan telah ditemukan untuk memprediksi kemudian bahasa reseptif
acity Universitas London, Inggris Raya
bUniversity College London, Inggris Raya
Correspondence ke Victoria CP Knowland:
victoria.knowland.1@city.ac.uk
Editor: Jody Kreiman
Asosiasi Editor: Megha Sundara
diterima September 29, 2014
Revisi menerima 31 Mei 2015
diterima 30 Juli 2015
DOI: 10,1044 / 2015_JSLHR-S-14-0269
Pengungkapan: para penulis telah menyatakan bahwa kepentingan bersaing ada pada saat
. publikasi
Journal of pidato, Bahasa, dan Mendengar Penelitian • Vol. 59 • 1-14 • Februari 2016 • Copyright © 2016 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1
download Dari: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org/ oleh Pengguna University College London pada 2016/03/04
Syarat Penggunaan : http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
skor untuk anak-anak dengan gangguan (Robertson et al, 2009;.
; Vance & Martindale, 2012 Ziegler et al, 2011.).
studi Perilaku defisit di speec
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: